Johnson-Handley-Johnson Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Aug 13, 1943

51 N.L.R.B. 1282 (N.L.R.B. 1943)

In the Matter of JOHNSON-HANDLEY-JOHNSON COMPANY AND JOHN SON
FURNITURE COMPANY and UNITED FURNITURE WORKERS OF AMERICA.
LocAL 415, C. 1. 0.
Case No. B-57115.-Decided August 13, 1943
Mr. Stephen F. Dunn, of Grand Rapids , Mich ., for the Company.
Mr. G. 0. Brown, of Grand Rapids , Mich ., for the Union.
Mr. William C. Baisinger , Jr., of counsel to the Board.
DECISION
AND
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Upon petition and amended petitions duly filed by United Furni-
ture Workers of America, Local 415, C. I. 0., herein called the Union,
alleging that a question affecting commerce had arisen concerning
the representation of employees of Johnson-Handley-Johnson Com-
pany, Grand Rapids, Michigan, and Johnson Furniture Company,
Grand Rapids, Michigan, herein collectively called the Companies, the
National Labor Relations Board-provided for an appropriate hearing
upon due notice before Harold A. Cranefield, Trial Examiner. Said
hearing was held at Grand Rapids, Michigan, on July 6 and 7, 1943.1
The Companies and the Union appeared and participated. All
parties-were afforded full opportunity to be heard, to examine and
cross-examine witnesses, to introduce evidence bearing on the issues,
and to file briefs with the Board. The Trial Examiner's rulings
made at the hearing are free from prejudicial error and are hereby
affirmed.
Upon the entire record in the case,2 the Board makes the following :
1 On the motion of the Companies , the Trial Examiner adjourned the hearing to July 13,
1943, for the purpose of taking additional evidence pertinent to the issues . Subsequent to
the hearing the Companies filed with the Trial Examiner , a written waiver of further
hearing. Said waiver is hereby made a part of the record
2 Subsequent to the hearing the parties entered into certain written stipulations which
are hereby made a part of the record. The first of these stipulations is between the Com-
panies and the Trial Examiner and concerns the business of the Companies . The second
stipulation was entered into by all the parties and states that Johnson Furniture Company
may be regarded as the employer of all employees of both Companies . The third stipula-
tion provides for the correction of certain errors in the transcript. The transcript is
ordered corrected in accordance therewith.
51 N. L. R. B., No. 205.
1282
JOHNSON-HANDLEY-JOHNSON COMPANY 1283
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES
Johnson-Handley-Johnson Company and Johnson Furniture Com-
pany are Michigan corporations operating plants located in Grand
Rapids, Michigan. The Companies are engaged at one plant in the
manufacture of furniture. During the past 14 months the Com-
panies have produced furniture valued at approximately $52,000
per month,'over 50 percent of which is shipped to points outside the
State of Michigan. At the second plant the Companies are engaged
in the manufacture of aircraft parts and for the past 14 months,
have produced finished products averaging $52,000 in value per month.
At this plant the Companies have used approximately $14,600 worth
of raw materials per month, about 30 percent of which was shipped
to the Companies' plant from points outside the State of Michigan.
The aircraft parts manufactured by the Companies are shipped di-
rect to Stinson Aircraft Division of Consolidated Vultee Aircraft
Corporation at Wayne, Michigan, where said parts are incorporated
in the liaison planes manufactured by Consolidated Vultee for the
Army Air Forces. The Companies do not deny that they are en-
raged in commerce within the meaning of the National Labor
Relations Act.
II. THE ORGANIZATION INVOLVED
United Furniture Workers of America, Local 415, is a labor organ-
ization affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Organizations, ad-
mitting to membership employees of the Company;
III. THE QUESTION CONCERNING REPRESENTATION
The parties stipulated that the Union requested the Companies
to recognize it as the exclusive bargaining representative of the em-
ployees within- the unit alleged to be appropriate in the amended
petition.3 It was further stipulated that the Companies would not
accord the Union recognition for the unit set forth in the second
amended petition unless and until the Union is certified by the Board.
A statement of the Regional Director, introduced into evidence at
the hearing, supplemented by a statement prepared by the Trial
Examiner subsequent to the hearing in accordance with the stipula-
8 The Union originally petitioned for the production and maintenance employees employed
in the Companies ' Aircraft Division plant. Thereafter it filed a second amended petition
in which it seeks to represent the production and maintenance employees in both the Furni-
ture Division and the Aircraft Division of the Companies. Due to an oversight , no'service
of the second amended petition was made on the Companies prior to the hearing . In view
of these facts the Trial Examiner granted the Companies ' motion for an adjournment of
the hearing.
54067 2-44-vol 51-82
1284 DECISION'S OF I'OATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
tion of the parties, indicates that the Union represents a substantial
number of employees in the unit hereinafter found to be appropriate.4
We find that a question affecting commerce has arisen concerning
the representation of employees of the Company, within the meaning
of Section 9 (c) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
IV. THE APPROPRIATE UNIT
The Union contends that all production and maintenance employees
employed in the Companies' Aircraft Division plant and/Furniture
Division plant, excluding supervisory employees, foremen, armed
guards, and office and clerical employees, comprise an appropriate
bargaining unit. The Companies take the position that the bargain-
ing unit should -be limited to the production and maintenance em-
ployees in the Aircraft Division plant and should exclude, in addition
to the exclusions desired by the Union, the watchmen, as well as
armed guards, as plant-protection employees. The Companies base
their contention on the grounds that the two distinct manufacturing
activities of the Companies involve such dissimilar operations, tech-
niques, and skills that the employees engaged in the manufacture of
aircraft parts may not properly be included in a bargaining unit with
the employees engaged in manufacturing furniture.
We cannot agree with the Companies' contention. While it is true
that each type of manufacturing is carried on in a separate building,
the machinery used is similar and the skills employed are related, at
least to the extent that a production worker in the furniture division
can, in a relatively short time, acquire the skill necessary for the
manufacture of aircraft parts. Approximately 75 percent of the em-
ployees now engaged in the manufacture of aircraft parts were
formerly employed in the Furniture Division plant. At least one
operation in the manufacture of aircraft parts is performed in the
Furniture Division plant. This operation involves about 4 man-
hours per week. All of the employees involved are employed by
Johnson Furniture Company, exept a few watchmen and firemen
who are employed by Johnson-Handley-Johnson Company to per-'
form maintenance and custodial services in the building owned by
the latter company. Johnson Furniture Company leases this build-
ing, which houses the Aircraft Division plant and is adjacent to the
Furniture Division plant, from Johnson-Handley-Johnson Company.
4 The statement of the Regional Director , as supplemented by the statement of the Trial
Examiner , shows that the Union submitted 117 application for membership cards bearing
apparently genuine signatures ; that of said 117 signatures , 85 are the names of persons
whose names appear on the pay roll of the Companies' Aircraft Division for May 23, 1943,
and the remaining 32 are the names of persons whose names appear on the pay roll of the
Companies ' Furniture Division for July 7, 1943; and that said pay rolls contain the names
of 236 persons within the alleged appropriate unit.
JOHNSON-HANDLEY-JOHNSON COMPANY 1285
The afore-mentioned maintenance employees are under the direction
and supervision of the superintendent hired by Johnson Furniture
Company and the Companies agree that they should not constitute
a separate unit.
The Companies are members of a production pool comprised of
about a dozen furniture manufacturers doing business in the Grand
Rapids, Michigan, area. This production pool, known as Grand
Rapids Industries, Inc., was formed in March 1942 by several fur-
niture manufacturers in Grand Rapids for the purpose of acting as
central representative in securing war contracts for the manufac-
ture of wood parts for training airplanes, gliders, and other war items
suited to their available woodworking facilities. The Grand Rapids
Industries exercises no control over any of the member companies'
employees and has no authority to act as the representative of its
members in negotiations with unions concerning labor relations.'
In view of the foregoing, facts and for reasons stated in the recent
Heckman case,e we find that a single unit embracing both divisions
of the Companies is appropriate for the purposes of collective bar-
gaining.
Watchmen: As previously noted the parties are in dispute with
respect to the disposition of the watchmen employed by the Companies.
The record indicates that these employees do not perform the same
functions as the armed guards employed by the Companies over whom
there is no dispute. These employees are not armed and are some-
times called upon to work relief shifts as firemen. We shall include
the watchmen in the appropriate unit.
High school student employees : The Companies employ a number
of high school students in their plants. Most of these student em-
ployees are employed only during the summer vacation months. How-
ever, the Companies indicated that those student employees desiring
permanent positions might be retained on the pay roll of the Com-
panies as permanent employees. The Union contends that those high
school student employees who intend to return to school after the
summer recess should be excluded from the unit and not be permitted
to vote since they lack a sufficient interest in the matter of representa-
tion. We shall exclude from the unit those student employees who
intend to terminate their employment at the end of the summer
recess.
We find that all production and maintenance employees, includ-
ing watchmen, but excluding foremen, plants guards, office and clerical
employees, all other supervisory employees with authority to hire, pro-
mote, discharge,discipline, or otherwise effect changes in the status of
employees, or effectively recommend such action, and all employees
5 See Mater of Hekinan Fur nature Company, 50 N. L R. E. 834.
Ibid.
1286 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
who intend to quit their employment upon the reopening of the school
term in Grand Rapids for the purpose of reentering school, constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining, within
the meaning of Section 9 (b) of the Act.
V. THE DETERMINATION OF REPRESENTATIVES
We shall direct that the question concerning representation which
has arisen be resolved by an election by secret ballot among the em-
ployees within the appropriate unit 7 who were employed during the
pay-roll period immediately preceding the, date of the Direction of
Election herein, subject to the limitations and additions set forth in
the Direction.
DIRECTION OF ELECTION
By virtue of and pursuant to the power vested in the National
Labor Relations Board by Section 9 (c) of the National Labor Re-
lations Act, and pursuant to Article III, Section 9, of National Labor
Relations Board Rules and Regulations-Series 2, as amended, it is
hereby
DIRECTED that, as part of the investigation to ascertain representa-
tives for the purposes of collective bargaining with Johnson-Handley-
Johnson Company and Johnson Furniture Company, Grand Rapids,
Michigan, an election by secret ballot shall be conducted as early as
possible, but not later than thirty (30) days from the date of this
Direction, under the direction and supervision of the Regional Director
for the Seventh Region, acting in this matter as agent for the National
Labor Relations Board, and subject to Article III, Section 10, of said
Rules and Regulations, among the employees in the unit found appro-
priate in Section IV, above, who were employed during the pay-roll
period immediately preceding the date of this Direction, including
employees who did not work during said pay-roll period because they
were ill or on vacation or temporarily laid off, and including employees
in the armed forces of the United States who present themselves in
person at the polls, but excluding employees who have since quit or,
been discharged for cause, to determine whether or not they desire
to be representedby United Furniture Workers of America, Local 415,
C. I. 0., for the purposes of collective bargaining.
CHAIRMAN MILLIS took no part in the consideration of the above
Decision and Direction of Election.
7 we hereby direct the Regional Director to ascertain, prior to the election , which student
employees , whose names appear on the payroll of the Companies for the pay -roll period
immediately preceding the date of the Direction of Election herein , intend to return to
school at the beginning of the next school term and to declare said employees ineligible to
vote in-the election.